If you have an IM plan already, you're all set.
If you have a group plan, you're all set.
If you have Medicaid or Medicare, you're all set.
If you have a hangnail, psoriasis, shingles or are overweight, you're probably all set.
If you haven't had insurance, or never had insurance, can't join a group and have a terminal or very expensive condition like hemophilia, cancer, AIDs, are a brittle diabetic, and finally decided to apply for insurance....you're probably going into a high risk pool.
How many people are going to be shuffled off into these high-risk insurance pools
Probably about 1% of the those in the total individual market.
with unaffordable premiums
So who told you they would be unaffordable premiums....and why shouldn't you pay more....it's not insurance, and you're going to be making $100,000 plus claims every year. To qualify for health insurance, you have to have good health to insure in the first place.
so that a bunch of people can save a few bucks a month on their medical insurance?
That "bunch of people"... hundreds of millions, most of the market (healthy insurable people) may well see their premiums cut by 50 to 70%.
Preexisting conditions coverage was about the only good thing of Obamacare.
Covering preexisting conditions is no longer insurance. Insurance covers unknown future risk.
(Hello, I just wrecked my car and my house is on fire...I'd like you to insure them)
Points well made. I am waiting for the liberals to demand that they can sign up for auto insurance after they wreck their car.
Very succinct.
I've been paying home insurance premiums ever since I bought my first house (30 years ago) and have yet to file a home insurance claim of any type. I've been paying auto insurance even longer than that and while I've had a fender bender or two, the claims don't even come close to the premiums I've paid during all those years.
But I'm not crabbing or bitching about the fact that my premiums have gone to pay for other people's claims (or insurance company profits). I'm not looking for a refund for all those years I paid into the system without taking anything out.
What I did get for those premiums over the years was peace of mind that if something catastrophic did happen with my house or my car, that I would be covered. That's the essence of insurance. You purchase it in the hopes that you never have to use it. The insurance company sets the rates so that they are able to pay out claims and rightfully take in a little profit for assuming all that risk and providing that peace of mind to others.
That's the same mindset I have towards health insurance. I'm not keen on people opting out of purchasing insurance while they are young and healthy and then expecting us to suddenly let them into the insurance pool with no penalty once they get older and sick. It's the moral equivalent of waiting for your house to catch fire or for a hurricane to hit before "purchasing" insurance.
Personally, I think there should be an insurance option where you pay for your own routine medical care out of pocket and only file a claim for a major event, like a surgery, having a baby, or getting treated for a major issue like cancer or heart disease.
I don't expect my car insurance company to pay for my oil changes, tune-ups and brake jobs, etc. I don't expect my home insurance company to come paint my house, put a new roof on and whatnot.
So why is it so different with health insurance? Why must every doctor's visit for a stubbed toe, sprained ankle or case of the sniffles be covered by insurance? That is really what is driving our health care costs so high. People in the emergency room for poison ivy, bee stings and other nonsense that used to be dealt with at home with a little rubbing alcohol and soapy water.
If all the routine stuff was paid out of pocket, then two things would happen: Overall health care cost would go down for everybody and there would be much less trivial visits clogging up our system, freeing up doctors to concentrate on people with real problems.
What about those who are going off their parents' insurance who have those conditions?
Probably about 1% of the those in the total individual market.
Your guess? I know at least half a dozen young people who are in this boat, including my son.
it's not insurance
That's exactly right. Medical insurance was not designed to be pure insurance. Part of its purpose is a cost-sharing arrangement where everyone pays a small surplus to cover costs of those who have catastrophic claims. It is more efficient than allowing the government to collect taxes and run a huge bureaucracy to administer treatment programs.
hundreds of millions, most of the market (healthy insurable people) may well see their premiums cut by 50 to 70%.
50 to 70 percent? Right. If we see 10% reductions in premiums, we'll be lucky.
Covering preexisting conditions is no longer insurance. Insurance covers unknown future risk.
It was never intended to be a pure insurance contract.
That "bunch of people"... hundreds of millions, most of the market (healthy insurable people) may well see their premiums cut by 50 to 70%.
Let's look at the math here. By moving 1% of the individual market into a HRP hundreds of millions -let's say 200m - will see their premiums cut by 50% to 70%.
The average premium for an individual is over $3,600 per year, so a 50% savings would be at least $1,800 x 200m people. That's $360B in annual savings.
We now allocate that expense to the 1% of individual market that has pre-existing conditions (because we've not done anything to reduce medical costs, just shifted them into a HRP). The individual market is about 10% of the population, or 32M people, and one percent of that is 320k.
So we now see that the cost savings of $360B will be shifted to the 320k HRP enrollees.
That's $1.125M per HRP enrollee per year.
How's that going to work?
If they can't write a small check and get a large one in return, it's 'unfair'...and 'greedy'...and 'not who we are.'
Or something.
Say you lose your job and your insurance and you continue coverage under COBRA and a year later, you get a new job that offers insurance. Because you have maintained coverage, the new ins. can't deny you because of a pre-existing condiition.
Say you lose your job and your insurance and you do not continue under COBRA. A year later, you get a new job and new insurance. Because you went a year without coverage, there was a penalty period of up to 6 months in which the new insurance would not cover the pre-existing condition. Once that period expired, the new insurance would then start covering the condition.
Depending on how long you were without insurance, the maximum penalty period was a year before the new insurance would start covering.
Am I wrong in the above?